Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Nifong Deposition, Part II

Yesterday’s post looked at portions of the Nifong deposition involving the police, the pretrial statements, and the April 4 lineup. Today’s will focus on Nifong’s dealings with DNA, Dr. Brian Meehan, and SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy. Tomorrow’s will explore aspects of Nifong’s personal life and character that the deposition revealed.

The deposition showed a prosecutor who readily admitted that he didn’t read reports, unapologetically stated that his quest was for evidence that would harm the lacrosse players, and never really asked whether a crime occurred in the first place.

The deposition also suggested that Nifong had developed a good working relationship with Tara Levicy—who joined Mark Gottlieb as the only other person (including, remarkably, his wife, Cy Gurney and the now-departed Linwood Wilson) to which the DA consistently referred by a first-name basis.

The highlights:

Meehan

Nifong offered yet another interpretation of the April 10 meeting with Dr. Meehan—at which, according to Meehan and Officer Ben Himan, the lab director told Nifong that his tests had revealed the presence of multiple unidentified male DNA on Crystal Mangum’s rape kit.

In his deposition, Nifong explained that he didn’t remember anything about the meeting. Why? He suggested to Doug Brocker that “it would probably just have been an introductory meeting and nothing about the case would have been discussed.”

As for the May 12 report, Nifong claimed that Meehan didn’t even go over it with him at the May 12 meeting—an assertion denied both by Meehan and by Gottlieb.

The Role of DNA in the Case

Nifong admitted that—at some point—Meehan told him about the multiple unidentified male DNA, but added that “I was not thinking of that in terms of having much relevance to the night in question . . . I really wasn’t thinking of that as having a whole lot of relevance.”

Brocker: At the time did it occur to you odd or unusual that they were able to recover DNA on some of these rape kit items from a single cell, but there was no DNA remaining from an alleged gang rape that had happened that same night?

Nifong: Not specifically, because as I said, the SBI lab had said that there was no ejaculation from that . . . I was aware that the victim that night had been in—she came in one car. She left in a separate car. She was in a police car. She was at the access center. She was at Duke Hospital. There were a lot of places where a fractional amount of DNA could be picked up from something that she was sitting on.

But I really, as I indicated, wasn't thinking very strongly about the possibility of that particular—those particular results having anything at all to do with the assault. And, you know, certainly in retrospect I believe that I probably should have paid more attention to that. I didn't at the time, and I think that led to some of the issues that resulted from, you know, my not having made notes and having paid more attention to it.

In other words, Nifong didn’t consider it odd that Meehan’s tests suggested that the “victim” might have picked up stray DNA from the cars in which she traveled to and from the party, but had no DNA on her from anyone who attacked her in a 30-minute violent assault.

The next day, Brocker followed up on the point, in more explicit terms, producing a rationalization for the lack of DNA from Nifong that would have been comical were the subject not so serious:

Brocker: There was nothing in Ms. Mangum’s statement that prior to December 21st that ever talked about being assaulted with anything other than a private part, I think is how she generally referred to it; is that right?

Nifong: That’s how she referred to it. But just as I indicated, when I was talking about victims not always knowing whether condoms are used, victims don't always know what body parts are inserted either.

On the other hand, in discussing the DNA mixture on the fingernail from which Dave Evans (and two percent of the rest of the people in the country) could not be excluded, Nifong asserted, “That was the result that we’d been waiting for.” At another point, Nifong stated that he had “glanced” at the May 12 report, reading only “specific pages, specifically involving Mr. Evans.”

Indeed, Nifong all but conceded another ethical violation (involving the duty of a prosecutor to evaluate all the evidence, including that which did not support his case) in this exchange with Brocker:

Nifong: I will concede that I made a real mistake in not going over the report more carefully. I should have done that. But had I done so, I’m not certain that I would have necessarily noted everything because I really wasn’t thinking about our previous discussion in terms of other items at the time. But I did not give the report the attention that I probably should have at the time I received it.

Brocker: OK.

Nifong: My primary concern was to get the report back to Durham, make copies, and get it out to the lawyers, because it was late in the afternoon on a Friday.

Brocker: Do I take it from your last answers that when you received that May 12th report that you believed or assumed that it included the information that unidentified male DNA had been found on evidence items that didn’t match the lacrosse players?

Nifong: Well, actually I think what I’m saying is that I wasn’t really thinking about that particular topic in terms of that. I don’t know that that even crossed my mind. [emphasis added]

In general, Nifong argued, the unidentified male DNA was unimportant. “It neither showed that these defendants did not do it,” he remarked, “or that somebody else did do what was alleged in this.”

When Nifong tried making this argument in the DHC hearing, Lane Williamson had little difficulty disposing of it. Surely, the DHC chair noted, not all evidence has to be a “smoking gun” to be relevant to the case? Nifong conceded the point.

An Interim or Final Report?

Nifong gave so many excuses for not turning over the DNA data that it was often difficult to keep track. Meehan, meanwhile, eventually fell back on the claim that the May 12 report was not a “final” report, and therefore Nifong couldn’t violated any discovery requirements. The lab director repeated this argument in the Nifong ethics trial, the DA's attorneys didn't challenge the testimony, and when presented with an opportunity by Lane Williamson to characterize the May 12 report as a “final” report, Nifong declined to do so.

In the deposition, however, Nifong conceded that he did consider the May 12 document to be a final report.

Brocker: What you’re saying in your answer is that . . . at the time you produced the data on October 27th, you didn’t do that with the intent of providing them with the remaining results because you’re saying you thought---

Nifong: (interposing) Yes, sir.

Brocker: ---they had it?

Nifong: That is correct. That is correct . . .

Brocker: So—and I’m just trying to make certain I understand—it’s not your position that you intended to provide them with certain results and a written report on May 12th and then provide them with the remaining results intentionally on October 27th?

Nifong: That is correct . . . My position is that I thought that I’d given them the full thing on May the 12th and that we gave them all the underlying data, which contained the other items that are referenced here, at that time, but that it was not with the intention of hoping they wouldn’t discover it. I just didn’t realize it hadn’t been produced till December 13th . . .

Brocker: At the time you got the May 12th report from DSI, was it your understanding that that was the final written report that you expected them to produce on the tests?

Nifong: I think that’s a fair statement, yes, sir.

Meehan and the Dec. 15 Hearing

Nifong struggled mightily to explain the December 15 hearing—at which Dr. Meehan admitted, in response to a question from Jim Cooney, that he and the DA had entered into an intentional agreement not to report all the results.

Would he agree, Brocker asked the DA, that other than proffering Dr.Meehan to testify—with no advance warning to defense attorneys—that he did not make any “affirmative statements to the Court” that the May 12 Meehan report was incomplete? “That is true,” Nifong conceded, adding that he “did not make such a statement specifically.”

Asked about his expectations for the hearing, Nifong remarked that it never occurred to him “that somebody might testify to something that's not the truth, you know, that somebody that I would—that would be a witness, like Dr. Meehan in this case, that he would—it would never have occurred to me that he wouldn’t have said the exact truth as he recalled it.” Was he, Brocker wondered, suggesting that Meehan hadn’t told the truth?

Nifong hedged. “For the most part,” he remarked, “I think that Dr. Meehan testified to what he believed to be true.” The exception? “There was one question . . . from Mr. Cooney . . . where he asked for an answer that seemed to contradict Dr. Meehan’s earlier testimony.” Nifong didn’t say why, on that question, Meehan suddenly stopped telling the truth.

Nifong unconvincingly asserted that he didn’t cross-examine Dr. Meehan on this crucial point because Meehan had implied elsewhere, earlier in the hearing, that no intentional agreement had been reached.

Tara Levicy

The deposition included a discussion of a heretofore unrevealed conversation between Nifong and SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy—who Nifong repeatedly termed “Tara,” rather than Nurse Levicy or Ms. Levicy, in his notes.

Despite Nifong’s stated open file discovery policy—as well as the statutory requirements of the state—the DA conceded that it appeared he had not turned over the notes of this conversation with the defense. (He did turn over the notes to the attorney general’s office.) And, unlike his multiple meetings with Dr. Brian Meehan, Nifong did take (very detailed) handwritten notes of his chat with Levicy.

The DA claimed that he could not recall when this conversation occurred, but believed it was a phone call. There also was a June meeting between Levicy, Duke Hospital SANE director Teresa Arico, and Nifong, notes for which were never produced.

The notes produced in the deposition offered a glimpse of how Nifong and Levicy, in the event of a trial, intended to get around the fact that Dr. Julie Manly performed the key parts of the exam—and that Manly came to have grave doubts as to whether a rape occurred.

“Tara actually guided her [Manly] through technique,” claimed Nifong. Only in Durham could a DA have tried to argue that a then-uncertified SANE nurse knew more about medical procedures than a fourth-year resident M.D. While Manly was not routinely involved in sexual assault exams at Duke, she told defense attorneys that she had performed around 30 pelvic exams in her previous position, in Idaho.

Other aspects of the Levicy/Nifong conversation dealt with the subjective evaluations in which Levicy (who later claimed to have never encountered a woman who lied about rape) specialized. Mangum’s behavior, according to Levicy, was “consistent with sexual assault emotionally and physically,” indeed of someone suffering from “rape trauma syndrome.” Levicy denied that Mangum showed any signs of intoxication (despite what Mangum herself would tell UNC doctors the next day), and recorded that Mangum offered “consistent responses” combined with “periods of crying, deep sadness.”

When Brocker asked about the January interview between Linwood Wilson and Levicy—in which Levicy radically changed her story, in ways convenient to the prosecution’s case—Nifong’s memory suddenly grew hazy. He said that he couldn’t “specifically recall the circumstances under which that came about”—indeed, he couldn’t even “recall” asking Wilson to chat with Levicy.

It was just a coincidence, apparently, that “Tara” was willing to help him out one last time.

KC - Calling Nurse Levicy is right up there with they "peed off the proch." Actually, one Nurse on her site, totally downplayed the Physician's role in the exam - in fact, called Dr Manly, a trainee. Where are the 5 to 7 meeting to skirt DNA, etc. Where have they gone. More respect than I can articulate for you, but persecuating this nurse is shameful.

Some of you are forgetting that a Bar hearing is not a judicial hearing in the strict sense of the word, it is technically an extra-legal process, taking place outside the boundaries of the criminal justice system. For that reason the Bar only has jurisdiction over those who have law licenses, and is not empowered to take action against anyone else no matter what they do.

When someone being investigated lies to the DHC and is found out, (ie Nifong) the maximum penalty is disbarment. When some other witness such as Levicy testifies falsely to the DHC there are generally no legal consequences - however whoever the liar is trying to support usually goes straight down the tubes (as in this case) meaing that their testimony was literally worse than useless, and the false statements they make can be used to impeach any testimony they give in any future civil or criminal actions.

To be succinct, the Bar can't "charge" anyone except lawyers with anything, and the highest penalty available is disbarment. Anything else has to come through the traditional criminal justice system.

I am half way through the first part of Nifong's deposition. His lying is breathtaking.

As for believing Levicy or Wilson, I will take Levicy any day of the week. [Note the BAR can not indict anyone for anything. Levicy does not have a law license so the bar can to nothing to her other than refer her to the local DA if they believe she lied under oath.]

Thank JLS - If the bar thinks she committed perjury - all they have to do is refer the case to Hardin? That is easy enough - I don't think this nurse would sacrifice her license for Nifong or Crystal, by committing perjury.

...Levicy denied that Mangum showed any signs of intoxication (despite what Mangum herself would tell UNC doctors the next day), and recorded that Mangum offered “consistent responses” combined with “periods of crying, deep sadness.”::These folks need to learn how to use their cell phones and text message capabilities so they can keep their stories straight.

The cops who were tending to Magnum at Krogers probably read this statement about Levicy's denial and applied for vacation time. A long vacation.

Only the FBI could ever get this sorted out.

Any black smoke coming out of the chimney at DPH tonight?

Where is Dick Nixon when you need him? He would know what to do.

All the cops wanted was for the parents of the three guys to show up with checkbooks..and not checkbooks and great lawyers.

How many bucks has Durham spent on this hoax so far?

Duke G88+Tara and DPD must be experiencing “periods of crying, (and)deep sadness.”::GP

Ms. Levicy appears to be a very inexperienced SANE Nurse (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) with an agenda.

Our Emergency Department (90,000 annual visits) tried using a SANE Nurse for about a year but found that individual incapable of performing an adequate objective exam compared to a board certified emergency physician. Our emergency physicians (male and female) in general dislike most alleged sexual assault exams and were looking for a way to avoid them.

The only reason emergency physicians consider using a SANE Nurse is to avoid court appearances and to have a lower level health care provider examine the many questionable patients who often have second thoughts and claim rape. Alleged rape claims are some of the more weird presentations in the emergency department. Many are real, but many defy rational explanation.

My favorite was the young lady who claimed she was sleeping with her husband after consuming 8 Zimas and passing out. When she awoke she had the impression that her rectum was sore and came to the ER. She (along with the help of her husband who was “very” concerned) discovered what her husband felt to be possible marks on their slider screen door and possibly some muddy tracks on their apartment patio. She was convinced that someone had snuck in her apartment and had rectal sex with her while her husband slept peacefully next to her. I looked at the husband and said, “Zomething’s Different.”

Tracy Levicy, think that one over.

We tried using a SANE Nurse but the inadequacies were readily apparent. SANE Nurses were only focused on the alleged assault and could not see the big picture or examine the whole patient. They also were not objective and tended to see themselves as an advocate of the alleged victim rather than as a dispassionate recorder of true observations.

The real irony is that if Crystal Magnum had presented to the majority of non-academic emergency departments in our country staffed by board certified emergency physicians this entire miscarriage of justice would never have occurred.

The Duke Trio had the misfortune that Crystal Magnum went to their own University Hospital and had an exam done by a resident in Internal Medicine with little experience in alleged sexual assault exams. In addition a second level health care worker (with, unfortunately, a major in “Women’s Studies”) looked on and then later represented herself to the authorities as an “expert” even though she wasn’t even qualified as a second level health care worker!

I hope that the settlement with Duke does not let Duke University Medical Center off the hook for their woefully inadequate sexual assault exam.

I agree about this little subspecality, however Doctor Manly did the physican exam and collected the swabs, etc. Nurse Levicy assisted the Physician. The AG came to the conclusion based on the Manly/Levicy exam that there was no credible evidence of rape, They did something right. Neither of the labs, who tested the material had a commplaint about the quality of the material. That does not look woefully inadequate to me, The rape kit clearned those boys and the rest of the stuff crucifying Nurse Levicy is noise,

Nifong stories, obfucations, and dissembling only became "lies" when he was finally put in a corner and his power was taken away from him. Otherwise, it was the "truth" to so many, some of whom still believe "something happened." Nifong would have found the DNA from a single cell important enough to put someone in prison for thirty years. As for dismissing where extemporaneous, spontaneous DNA came from what on earth was this woman sitting on in the cab. Also, refusing to leave a parked car, it was her behavior when she first interfaced with the Durham police that night that allowed all of this to accelerate into what it became, a hoax.

Levicy's role in the hoax is central. She is so ideologically driven that she still doesn't understand either what happened or her own role in the travesty. She does not deserve our sympathy or our mercy.

Women's Studies programs around the country are producing thousands of Levicy's; women who have been brainwashed to exaggerate by a hundred fold the amount of actual sexual violence. The goal of such programs is to produce students for whom the actual truth is less important than the message. For them, sending three innocent men to jail for thirty years for an assault that never happened is like completing a senior thesis. They don't understand that it is wrong.

Go to any campus in the country and you will find that the last bastion of support for the "Magnum as victim" fantasy is your local women's studies crew.

Levicy is the only participant in this farce who shows absolutely no remorse. Even Nifong was forced to acknowldedge he screwed up. Levicy is still too brainwashed to get it. She is a college created sociopath.

You missed one interesting part in part 2 of Nifong's depo. Brocker asks him whether they put together the 'no wrong answers' lineup to determine (in part) whether CGM had been drugged. Nifong denied this of course. However, Gottlieb claims in his depo the opposite. A nice little trap by Brocker. I'm assuming Gottlieb's depo came first as Brocker clearly was using info gained in it to trip up The Fong...

Aside from the fact that sitting in a car or a chair at the Durham Access Center would not cause DNA transfer to some of the locations where male DNA was found in and on Crystal, Meehan's lab performed differential fractionation of their samples before isolating DNA. So we know that much of the unidentified DNA came specifically from sperm and not epithelials. That fact makes Nifong's argument even more ludicrous.

Every time I read Nifong's responses in depositions or in testimony, I am flabbergasted at his amateurish performance. He actually has a law degree? And did I read somewhere that he graduated UNC Law magna cum laude? He should have lost his tickets for sheer stupidity before they even held the disciplinary hearing. He'll look real nice in his orange jumpsuit. With any luck he'll have his pals in the crowbar motel with him so they can relive old times and reminisce about puttin them rich white boys in the slammer.

I would suspect that Levicy is covered by the settlement. That is really too bad because it lets this victim's advocate masked as a SANE to cause trouble for others now. She should have her license revoked.

"Aside from the fact that sitting in a car or a chair at the Durham Access Center would not cause DNA transfer to some of the locations where male DNA was found in and on Crystal, Meehan's lab performed differential fractionation of their samples before isolating DNA. So we know that much of the unidentified DNA came specifically from sperm and not epithelials. That fact makes Nifong's argument even more ludicrous."

12:24/12:27You do know how to use these newfangledthings - think they call 'em computers -and the internet, doncha?(C'n yew look up Tuesday, May 7on DIW? C'n yew fahnd yor buttin the dark with both hands?)

KC says:"Over the course of the case,Levicy had no fewer than four meetings and three telephone calls with Durham police officers or representatives of the districtattorneys office."

And furthermore, 12:24/12:27,Nurse Tara didn't do the swabs:you keep showing up saying that thewell-collected evidence proves that Taradid her job? Well, that was Dr. Manley's job (although Mikey claimed that Tara "guided" her through the procedure.(Is that what Tara told him?)

KC,I don't know what Dr. Manly's field of specialization is,but it's unlikely any 4th year has only performed 30 pelvics.A 4th year presupposes an OB(thousands),ER,FP doing a fellowship(still thousands) or Gen Surg(hundreds) of pelvics.COuld you please check the # of pelvics. Corwin

A PS, I can't understand how MS levicy is covered by the settlement.I would think Duke Hospital is a different entity than the U. In any case ,her nfuture employment opportunities will be meager. Corwin

I don't believe Levicy is a hoaxer in the sense of a Gottlieb or Wilson. That is, I don't see her as an active participant in the hoax. I view her as a Useful Idiot that helped move the hoax along without her necessarily intending for that to happen. When on stage, she just wanted to make sure she got an opportunity to spout off her women's studies perspective (after all, she worked hard for that BA in BS, didn't she?).

Her feminist positions (never met a woman who lied about rape / rape is about power, not sex, so that could explain no semen, etc.) formed the basis of some of her comments, which happened, in specific instances, to bump up against the larger metanarrative of race / gender / class that surrounded this case.

A couple of things Levicy needs to take away from this case:

1. Some women lie about rape.2. There might be an element of power involved when someone rapes someone they know, but rape, for someone who rapes a stranger (as was implied in this case), is about sex. It is not the same as sex from a non-rapist's (i.e., consensual sex) perspective, but I don't believe rapists, when committing the act against a stranger, go around thinking "I'm getting me some power today."

All of that aside, I believe Levicy acted unprofessionally by making statements outside her level of expertise. As a trainee, she had no business offering comment. When questioned, she should have referred the questioner to her supervisor. That should be the third thing she learned from this.

10:16Doubtful that Levicy is coveredby DUMC. In any case,her main liability is with regardto her professional status:if she claimed to have told Dr. Manly - (IF she claimed to, and didn't) - she would have been misrepresenting herself.

Apparently, her stories somehowhave not been consistent. I'm not sure how far the Board ofHealth Professionals would go insuch a case. (That may be answeredat some point in time.)

DUMC may not be responsible foranything she's stated AFTER theexamination, unless it can be proventhat DUMC (or an agent of DUMC)ordered her to testify to the DPD/DA.

She was likely called to testify because all she had were opinions,and a deviation from her own opinions wouldn't help Mikey, norwould it hurt him. She apparently had many stories.Also remember that she was a witness for Mikey's defense, notthe Bar.

On the other hand, I stated (a long time ago) that shebetter have memorialized her own visits with Mikey et al, because if they took notes and she didn't...the wheels of the bus would bemerciless.

Now it appears that Mikey had herin his sights as his potential excuse, since he took many notes...that he'll admit to.

Watch out, sweetie! The bus isalmost here! You may not have committed a crime - (no one says you did) - but you can't affordto be care-free.

1. The referal is only to Hardin IF the deposition was taken in Durham County. We have not seen Levicy's to know where hers was taken.

2. Of course Levicy did not see any signs of intoxication. Mangum left the party at around 12:30, she first encountered the cops at about 1 AM. So Mangum likely did not have anything to drink or any drugs after Midnight and or at least after 1 AM. I believe we have read that there was no SANE on duty at DUMC and Levicy saw Mangum when she cam in for the day shift at something like 7 AM. So that Mangum did not seem intoxicated to Levicy is hardly surprising. [The only doubt about this is that Mangum might have had some drugs on her, started this hoax to avoid them being found at Durham access and then taken them when no one was around her at DUMC.]

3. I would consider Mangums attire for that evening, remember she did not have to change to perform, before I completely ruled out that that she got some random DNA up there sitting in a patrol car. :-) Of course Nifong offering that as a theory is laughable.

The whole damned crowd, the Group88, the Duke administration, the Durham police, the district attorney's office, Nifong, and the pot bangers (sounds like a bad rock group) were all useful idiots who moved this sorry case along. They were caught in a false world view, and they were determined to make it true. It wasn't true, but it doesn't matter to them. All of them were looking for something that wasn't there, and they couldn't see what was right in front of them. This is where the country and this society are now. Reality to this politically correct crowd of academics and enablers is saying Stalin is such a nice man, or Hitler wouldn't do anything like that whatever that is, and no woman would cry rape if it wasn't true. Susan Smith told me that. Right! (sarcasm up the waaaaaaaaazoo, whatever that is)

Maybe she did get some DNA in the patrol car . . . a little DNA here, a little DNA there. Maybe she sat in a big pile of DNA in the back of the patrol car. It is a known fact that a lot of DNA is passed around in the back seat of . . . cars. You got to beliebe me, Baby. I'm da Fong, and I'm sworn to tell the truth and nothing but the . . . . Qestion, can you test bullshit for DNA?

Trouble is, Grant, that none of these young men who could be analogous (by your analogue) to the men described in these Scriptures really had any reciprocal interest in your girl: it was purely unrequited.

My wife is an RN and did a travel contract at DUMC for approximately 6 months during the summer of 2005 (she works ICU/Trauma and Emergency Medicine). One thing that she always mentioned to me when she called home was the mindset of the medical staff at DUMC - they felt that since they were one of the premiere medical facilities in the nation, that things were done there in one of three ways; (1) my way, (2) your way, and (3) the Duke way, with number (3) being the approved way.

It caught me off guard, especially since this was after DUMC received notoriety about the heart/lung transplant done on the teenager that went wrong (the transplant team did not properly screen the donor organs against the recipient). She also heard about other "misadventures" that happened while she was there that had her questioning what was going on there. Eventually, her contract was not renewed and she returned home.

Some medical facilities, especially if they are well now, get wrapped up in the persona of being bastions of medicine - and unfortunately that culture passes down to the staff. Tara Levicy probably bought into this mindset from the moment that she was hired on at DUMC, and believes it to this day - that the "Duke way" is the only way to deal with people.

Levicy is certainly not the only demon in this hoax but her early statements that the exam found evidence consistent with rape were championed by the masses of proof that the boys were guilty. She alone provided the push that the entire hoax needed last spring. Other than the statement of a "victim" who was rapidly becoming discredited, there was no other "evidence" to further the lie except for dear Tara's statements to police. When I tried to defend the boys against the onslaught of negative public opinion last spring, I had her statement thrown back at me repeatedly. "Something must have happened! The nurse at Duke Hospital said that she had injuries consistent with rape!"No, Tara is no innocent in this. Nifong may have used her but she was used willingly.

No one on this board knows one thing about Nurse TAra's professional abilities or personality. Now that she has testified that she had two interview with LE, the charges of 5 to 9 have been proven bogus. That includes the BFT and other stuff attribituated to her.

Let Levicy state - (under oath) -that her statements didn't"evolve." And that she didn't"guide" doctor Manley throughthe procedure, as Mikey claimed.(admittedly, he lies a lot, soit doesn't make it fact - so let'shere your girlfriend's rebuttal!)

She should also be asked:How many of those procedures didNurse Tara perform, on her own?

How many rape victims did NurseTara treat? If there were cases:was she certified when she treated them? How could she have experience in whether or not rapevictims lied or not? Did sheroutinely - up to that point -ever actually treat them?

The proof is in her sworn under oath testimony at the Bar Trial. You remember that don't you. Your do remember no one stood up shouting "Liar, Liar, pants on fire. You do know that no accussation of perjury has been leveled aginst this nurse. Got any more questions?

She wasn't on trial, was she?Therefore, no "accussation."You've gotta do better than that.

Still haven't answered the questions, have you.

Let me guess: you're her boyfriend,you have help when you write theseridiculous posts, you don't work - (not really, except in some kind of house-remodelling scheme) -and you sponge off of poor Tara,not wanting to see your gravytrain evaprorate.

MAC - Is this an attempt to deceive? You know as well as I, Nurse Tara was subpoened to the trial - you make it look like she was a volunteer. Ms Jean made a point about the subpoenea - does Ms Jean know things, we don't know? My quess is yes.

I have no idea how many rape claimers she has assisted with at DUMC. As a part time on call Nursing job, with an average of 80 claims a year, don't imagine she has assissted in to many. Mac - Its a checklist - any RN or monkey could do that.Dr Manly is the Doctor who did the vaginal and physical exam. She also decided to not do the Colo..

I'm not JLS; I never said Levicywould be charged. IF she is, sheis, but I never suggested that shecommitted a crime.

Unless...she actually claimed shetaught/"guided" Dr. Manly on howto perform the exam. I would beinterested to hear how Dr. Manleyresponds to such a claim -whether it was a claim from Mikey - (who memorialized it) -or from Levicy - (who didn't.)

Like it's been said time after timeon this blog, with regard to nursing notes:

"If you didn't write it down,it didn't happen."

That, coincidentally, is apparentlyMike Nifong's M.O. (Worse for Tara, if he DID write down his conversations with her.)

A survivor may cry, shout, swear, laugh nervously, be silent, discuss the weather, or sit calmly. Responses may vary depending on any one of a number of external and experiential circumstances. No response is inappropriate!

Oh boy. Nifong sure knows how to lie. If he was Pinocchio his nose would span the entire continent of North America by now. It's amazing how he can shift from story to story. He's approaching the Crystal Mangum level of story switching. Those two must have really hit it off.

And she picked up all those male epi cells from sitting in different cars? How about the ones up her keister? How about the ones in her mouth? How could they have gotten there? Gee, I wonder.

I just pray we see Nifong in an orange jumpsuit. If Paris Hilton did 20 some days then he should do some serious time. I bet he goes kicking and screaming too. I just hope it's all on video.

Possibly he'll go like mostof the Royal Family in the FrenchRevolution, with a stiff-upper-lipand a sense of dignity.A crueler hope would be that he faceshis sentence like Robespierrewhen he faced the National Razor.

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review